The very last thing they want is your fucked up “power down” tribal agrarian society.

Yeah, we sure do love our agriculture here…

(1) Which is something I actually mentioned in the article: “it remains quite clear that the threat of a nuclear meltdown at any particular plant is quite low.” But as I want on to say, a very low probability of catastrophe can still give you a very poor expected value—the probability may be mercifully low, but the consequences of any failure are catastrophic. And of course, for any non-zero probability, the chances increase the more you use it.

(2) You’re vastly downplaying the effects of Chernobyl. I’ve known people who were there. The full toll of Chernobyl is difficult to gauge; between Soviet authorities and modern pro-nuclear lobbies, there’s consistently been very powerful groups quite interested in keeping a lid on all the information. No thorough assessment has ever been done. If it hadn’t started spilling over into Sweden, the USSR would’ve been perfectly content to pretend it’d never happened at all. But given the spread of the radiation, the true health effects are probably staggering. Not that we’ll ever be allowed to know.

(3) I didn’t mention CANDU, that was someone in the comments.

(4) The graph certainly shows how uranium production has fallen off in a classic Hubbert-style peak, but the short supply is shown more by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, whose report said that we had only 50 years of uranium left just for current levels of use—or are they a bunch of fear-mongers, too?

(5) Well that, and, nobody’s sure if fast breeders will even work.

(6) Assuming that the problems with thorium are fixable. If we have another century of civilization, that doesn’t mean we’ll have another century of the same. Innovation is subject to diminishing returns. Our inventions are increasingly costly and increasingly modest. We’re approaching an asymptote—making thorium work may not be possible, or if it is possible, it may lie beyond our asymptote of innovation. Since you’re obviously unfamiliar with the rest of the site, you may want to read thesis #14 and thesis #16, which go into great detail on why this argument is utter bullshit.

(7) I believe I mentioned that this is primarily a question of fuel, but fuel is absolutely a critical point to consider. If we’re going to replace this all with electrified rail, we need to lay that electrified rail first. That’s a very high up-front cost (particularly since our uranium mines aren’t always in the easiest neighborhoods to get to). And now you need to mine uranium even faster, because its EROEI is dropping now that you’re paying for the investments out of the nuclear budget rather than fossil fuels. And that still doesn’t answer all the other critical roles fossil fuels play in the mining process: drilling, pumping, etc.

From the sources you cite, it’s clear that David Fleming is a big fat liar and totally unreliable.

David Fleming is a respected writer and authority on energy. You’re a well-known internet troll. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there might well be one of you that’s “a big fat liar and totally unreliable,” but I’m betting it isn’t Fleming.

Oh and permanent storage of nuclear waste is more than planned. The reason it hasn’t happened already is because we could AFFORD to wait 40 years. This isn’t the case with any other energy source.

I’m guessing you must be referring to the Yucca Mountain plan, where the U.S. intends to dump all of its nuclear waste. Except the facility hasn’t been properly planned, and even though it’s been desperately needed for years now precisely because we can’t afford to wait so long with such dangerous materials (the impacts waiting this long has already had are discussed in links provided in the original article), it’ll have to wait longer anyway precisely because it’s not ready yet.

As for the lack of plans in the fucked up USA, well that’s just a result of having all these rabidly anti-nuclear environmentalists.

I thought you just said it was planned—”more than planned,” in fact. So which one is it? Is it “more than planned” or do we have a “lack of plans”? You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next!

Because what it all comes down to is that people like civilization and they want more of it.

Really? What’s your favorite part about civilization? War? Disease? I hear stress-related heart disease is big with the kids these days. Oh, how about starvation? Alienation, maybe? I mean, who doesn’t love being treated like a cog? Oh, I know, cancer! It’s cancer, isn’t it? Don’t you just love cancer?

The very last thing they want is your fucked up “power down” tribal agrarian society.

You’re right, longer, healthier lives in commuities that appreciate you as a person are just so out of style, man. Who would want that? Give me mass extinction and a slow, painful, wasting disease any day of the week!

Oh and permanent storage of nuclear waste is more than planned. The reason it hasn’t happened already is because we could AFFORD to wait 40 years. This isn’t the case with any other energy source.

As for the lack of plans in the fucked up USA, well that’s just a result of having all these rabidly anti-nuclear environmentalists. The same anti-nuclear environmentalists that created the global warming crisis with their preference for oil power plants over nuclear power.

Because what it all comes down to is that people like civilization and they want more of it. The very last thing they want is your fucked up “power down” tribal agrarian society.

First of all, the probability of a meltdown with a PWR or BWR is miniscule compared to the obsolete MBKR design used by the soviet union. And that miniscule probability is gigantic compared to the much lower probability that will come from the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor).

Second of all, the main result of the Chernobyl accident was the death of 50-60 people fighting the fire, a few cases of thyroid cancer from children who were infants at the time (everyone else is pretty much immune), and the creation of a vast new thriving nature preserve. THIS is what we’re supposed to be afraid of? Oh yeah, I guess you count the mass hysteria since you seem to be inverting “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” to conclude that we SHOULD fear fear.

Third of all, nice use of CANDU for fear-mongering. In point of fact, CANDU is probably the worst of all modern designs and certainly the worst-managed by far. Canada’s reactors are shit. But so what? When you calculate the cost of a new thermal plant, you don’t look at the one that was burned to the ground for insurance fraud, do you?

Fourth, uranium is not in short supply. The hump you see in that stupid graph is caused by working through overstocking.

Fifth, fast breeders were deemed uneconomical because of an increase in cost of fuel by a factor of 3 or so. Considering what a small part of costs fuel accounts for, it can easily triple in price without affecting electricity prices any. This can’t be said for any of the fossil fuels.

Sixth, if we can power civilization for the next century with uranium, we’ll have more than enough time to fix the problems with thorium.

Seventh, the oil inputs to uranium mining are largely fuel. Electric vehicles and electrified rails (for transport) would take over from the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine).

• Wikipedia, “Criticisms of the reactor design”
• What’s Wrong With the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor?
• The Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor: Safety Issues

But ultimately you are spot on with your post of July 27th and Jevons paradox…

How many life-years are lost per Gigawatt of coal-generated electricity as opposed to fission-generated electricity?

What is the relative risk to the environment?

etc.

These are the questions to ask.